“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes... Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent, fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

Swenson observes:

The passage — “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” — has been read as an unequivocal order for Christians to obey state authority, a reading that not only justified Southern slavery but also authoritarian rule in Nazi Germany and South African apartheid.

And what about other things in the New Testament? Stephen Colbert joked darkly:

“Hey, don’t bring God into this. I don’t think God picked you, because I don’t worship Vladimir Putin... Jesus said, ‘Suffer the children to come unto me.’ But I’m pretty sure all Sessions saw was the words ‘children’ and ‘suffer’ and said, ‘I’m on it.’ ”

Swenson collects other pro-immigrant Christian responses

“I guess Sessions forgot about the Gospels part of the Bible. Matthew 25:35 says ‘For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,’ ” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said on Twitter. “Nothing in the Bible says to separate kids from parents. It teaches the opposite.”...

Theology scholar Mike Frost wrote in 2016 that Romans 13 should not be used to quell dissent because it comes from a period when Christians faced persecution from the Roman Emperor Nero.

“This is the guy who was said to have had Christians dipped in oil and set on fire to light his garden at night,” Frost wrote. “It makes perfect sense that Paul would commend the fledgling church to keep its head down, to avoid rocking the boat, to submit quietly to the prevailing political winds. They had no choice. They lived under the authority of a dictator.”

Quite aside from what the Bible says, should the Attorney General be using the Bible to defend a government policy? One might answer yes, because the policy was challenged morally, and even though it is theoretically possible to discuss morality without religion and some people can only discuss morality without religion, for many people morality is bound up with religion, and it should be at least permissible to discuss the morality of a public policy in terms of religion. There are consequences to using religion this way, though, of course. It may feel exclusionary to those who don't share the religion or who have a religious problem with interpreting scripture for a political purpose. And if you've got a passage for your position, then I'll have a passage for mine, and I can reinterpret yours and you can reinterpret mine, and we may find ourselves making garbage out of what we were only using in the first place because we posed as believing it was holy.

By the way, we all feel bad for the children, but I'm seeing a spotlight on the point when the children are removed from parents who are being sent to prison. If the separation is wrong, what is the less wrong thing that ought to be done instead? I'm not seeing anyone talking about that. Am I missing everything that answers my question or are there reasons why no one wants to talk about that?

It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.

To be honest, I just assume that this issue is what the permanent outrage machine has chosen to latch onto this week, and as such I ignore it. Enforcing the law is cruel? Well, get the law changed, then. Was it cruel when Obama enforced it, too?

Sessions should go away. He's been a huge disappointment. He's energized about making marijuana illegal and forfeiture easier. He's asleep about the biggest issue of our day. The fight between accountable government and an unrestrained unaccountable government.

I would love to see Trump call in Sessions, Wray and Rosenstein and say "you're fired!" The IG report and their tepid response to it is more than enough justification to get rid of them.

How about Dershowitz for AG? He'd stop a lot of the civil right abuses.

The prior Cardinal-Archbishop of Los Angeles (Since removed from office for "gross misconduct") and many other Catholic “leaders” have made claims that Jesus the Christ would have supported open-borders and free immigration into the USA.

That is a lie!

First, Jesus' kingdom was NOT of this world. How do I know? He said so himself! There is very little in the Gospels with direct application to government as opposed to the great number of verses addressed to the redemption of individuals and preaching His Word to the nations.

The most direct statement as to government was the classic “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's”. At the time of Jesus citizenship and residency in the Empire did, in fact, belong to Caesar and the Roman Senate. Through time that, in the USA, has passed to The Congress.

'By the way, we all feel bad for the children, but I'm seeing a spotlight on the point when the children are removed from parents who are being sent to prison. If the separation is wrong, what is the less wrong thing that ought to be done instead? I'm not seeing anyone talking about that. Am I missing everything that answers my question or are there reasons why no one wants to talk about that?"

I'm awaiting the blowback for a similar comment I made on fb. A true Trump hater posted some article about the cruelty of separating the children at the border and I pointed out that children are removed from their homes everyday when parents break the law. I also said, and I stand by it, that we should be thanking the Trump administration for highlighting an ongoing issue and if the outrage is dialed back a bit, perhaps some steps can be taken towards resolving the issue.

If you don’t want to separate illegal aliens from their children, you could either send the children to jail or let the parents and children go free. Which approach will encourage more illegal immigration?

That there are protocols for Legal immigration annoys some/all folks on the left. Biblical guidance in matters is old as well. This is the NEW AGE as brought on by NEW THINKING. Live in the now, no boundaries progressive thinking, mostly by those who ignore consequences, like "who pays for it". Europe is likely toast, lets follow.

Clearly the less wrong thing, according to the critics of the policy, is for a woman who arrives with a child to be given a pass, allowed to enter the country and disappear into the world of undocumented immigrants. Left out of the equation, of course, is that if separating children from their parent is so awful and traumatic and destructive, why are the parents coming here with them, knowing that will happen? Shouldn't some opprobrium attach to the parent? And why, pray tell, aren't these asylum seekers making lives for themselves in Mexico, which has a decent economy, speaks the language they do and in which their tuchuses are already located?

Democrats don't want to solve these problems (immigration as a whole or this particular issue) - 1) they really need to keep them alive as talking points, and 2) at all costs they absolutely can't afford to have Trump be involved with the solution. We see that is this issue, we see that in how they are dealing with the NoKor summit/denuclearization, we see that with their coverage of the administrations work on prison/sentencing reform.

"To be honest, I just assume that this issue is what the permanent outrage machine has chosen to latch onto this week, and as such I ignore it."

This. They don't care about these kids anymore than they care about women or minorities. They're just pawn to their wedge issues. They'd allow them to be put through a wood chipper if the end result was no more Trump.

I would guess most illegals can prove nothing about their "children", or even that they are theirs and. So many "children" in progressive Europe being found to be adults. Unprepared for the 20th century, illegals are thrusting them into the 21st. Incalculable future liability. Risk assessment is off the table.

I think you missed the point. Sessions quote refers to government and none of the others do. Sessions wasn't saying what a Christian should do or what society should do, but what government should do, and that's follow the law.

How about deport ALL of them? How about streams of weeping, bedraggled children marching back across the fucking border where they belong? Why do I have to give a fuck about someone else's children? Hint: I don't.

Of course there was no "democracy" as we understand it today in Jesus' time on earth. He could not have thought of government as a representation of or agent of individuals. His calls to help the poor and outcast were admonitions to individuals about their behavior as individuals, not to individuals about their behavior as voters or supporters of government, because individuals did not have any of the second type of behavior. The passage cited does seem to reflect the opinion (of Paul, not Jesus) that individuals had an obligation (religious or ethical or moral) to abide by the laws of their society.

I'm outraged that people are outraged over families being separated. I got the impression from news stories that were coming out a few years ago that there was an increase in child trafficking. People wanted something done about that. Now, we have people coming across the border with children. They say the children are theirs, but how can you be sure? It's better to separate them temporarily and find out rather than to do nothing to stop children from being exploited.

I'm a parent and it's hard to think about having to be separated from your children like that. It would be harder to lose a child permanently to forced labor or sexual exploitation.

The ACLU is bringing a suit now where a woman appeared at the border and claimed asylum. In that case it's alleged that we are supposed to set up a hearing and not separate the families. What we are supposed to do with the people who show up without an asylum claim when they have dragged their children along is not being discussed, that I've seen. Presumably the people up in arms about this would like us to quit enforcing the law that says such people should be incarcerated, but they don't say this.

I greatly appreciate Ann's comment below and the thoughtful responses to it. It is the crux of the issue.

"By the way, we all feel bad for the children, but I'm seeing a spotlight on the point when the children are removed from parents who are being sent to prison. If the separation is wrong, what is the less wrong thing that ought to be done instead?"

"They don't care about these kids anymore than they care about women or minorities"

-- If they did, we'd have had this conversation under Obama.

I'm all for some better oversight and structure. Some of the facilities have looked draconian and like they were designed to punish the children. But, you also can't leave kids with parents who might be going to jail. And even if you solve THAT problem, what do you do with all of the unaccompanied minors coming?

There's a better way, I'm sure. But if we only focus on these terrible problems when a Republican is president, I can't help but feel we'll never solve them.

.....when the children are removed from parents who are being sent to prison. If the separation is wrong, what is the less wrong thing that ought to be done instead?

Somehow this doesn't seem to be a problem when we remove children from their parents who happen to be legal citizens. Parents who have committed crimes go to jail and the children are placed in foster care with strangers....for their own good of course :-|

In the case of the "families" (yes I used scare quotes) who have committed the crime of illegally crossing over the borders into this country and who have also committed other crimes on their way and who will likely continue to commit crimes, the better solutions are

1. Send the whole damned family back across the border.

2. Depending on young the "children" are,(yes more scare quotes) separate the innocent young ones from their criminal parents.....for their own good of course. Place them with certified and vetted foster parents....And then

3. Send the parents back or send the parents to jail.

The really less wrong thing to do is Don't break the law in the first place.

As a Christian, I'm going to say no, he shouldn't be quoting Bible verses to justify policies. He could have just said that the government is reacting to the law breaking of the parents. If the parents weren't breaking the law, then it wouldn't be necessary to separate the children from them. My guess is that he quoted the verse because, get ready to have your world rocked and mind blown resident leftists, lots of Christians, including Evangelicals, are pro-immigrant and are effectively open border supporters. Most churches in the US above a certain size have Spanish language services and are constantly reaching out to the Hispanic community, even ones that are otherwise quite conservative. He was probably trying to communicate with those people and not the secular community.

As for the verse itself, its basically a call to obey legitimate authority that enforces order within a society as long as obeying the authority does not conflict with with God's word. In Acts Peter is ordered by the Sanhedrin to stop preaching about Jesus and the Gospel and he tells them that he can either obey them, men, or God and he is going to obey God. Paul's admonition to obey secular authority has to be interpreted in light of that.

You also have to remember that there was, and still is, a tendency in Christianity towards antinomianism, "relating to the view that Christians are released by grace from the obligation of observing the moral law." That was what Paul is addressing in Romans 6. " What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" The answer to that by the way is no.

How dare he bring up Scripture while addressing a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops!

I was not aware of that, that would explain his use of the Bible then. The Catholic Catechism teaches that nations should be welcoming towards immigrants, but it also states that immigrants should respect the country's laws and customs. Catholic Bishops have a tendency to ignore the latter part.

So, as a Christian, I have no problem whatsoever with Sessions using the Bible to support a policy when he is addressing a group that is Christian by its very nature. That would seem completely non-controversial to me.

I agree with John Henry, it is suspicious that this has become an issue now even tho separating kids from their parents started during Obama presidency. It is convenient that progressives are enflamed about this right at same time the IG report on nefarious actions of FBI is released.

To that I say that some people hate kids. Sessions and Trump won't defend kids who are hungry, homeless, or need medical care. However, they suck up to the religious fringe nuts, and anti-abortionists. Brown kids are second-class munchkins who come from sh*thole countries like Mexico. Where's the WALL to stop the infiltration and invasion by these undesirable brats.

Trump: Mexico is not sending us their best (kids); criminals, drug dealers and rapists are crossing border. (I like white kids from Norway anyway.)

"Thank you to the Fort Wayne Rotary Club, the Fort Wayne Business Forum, the Allan County Bar Association—and most of all thank you to law enforcement officers from the federal, state, and local levels"

I recall reading that there are many asylum seekers who have crossed the border for the first time which is considered a misdemeanor. Because it’s a misdemeanor, arresting them and separating them from their children seems like overkill. As for the policy, AG Sessions announced a “zero tolerance” agenda on the border on May 7. This wasn’t happening in this way under Obama, this is a new policy. From mid April to the end of May over 1,900 kids were separated from their parents. Why not keep the children with their parents and detain the family together, if they must be detained. There is no reason they need to be held in a prison like setting either. When all the Cuban balseros were being detained they held them in camps on Guantanamo until they were given asylum. Why the different treatment for asylum seekers from South America as opposed to asylum seekers from Cuba?

Also the new zero tolerance policy under Sessions states that even those with no previous criminal history are to be arrested. The change in policy is now referring all the arrestees to the DOJ for prosecution. This is new, wasn’t happening under Obama.

Re the immigration issue, I think the essence of it was pretty much captured by the joke, "If illegal immigrants tended to vote Republican, would 'liberals' care about them?"

As for the Bible stuff, I'm a non-believer; but I wish "liberals" (and by that I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping government sniffers and State humpers") would keep in mind the commandments "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not cover thy neighbor's goods." They should also take a closer look at "Thou shalt not murder" (erroneously translated as "Thou shalt not kill") since it would seem to imply a non-aggression ethic, and without aggressive force, and the threat of aggressive force, modern statist "liberalism" would cease to exist.

They entrust themselves and their children to cartels and coyotes prior to reaching the border. They're already putting their children at risk, and some are using their children as bargaining chips.......You will never hear a bad word said against these families. At one time, you never heard a bad word said against Ortega no Chavez. I suffer from propaganda fatigue. The detention centers are not concentration camps.

Althouse wrote: “...what is the less wrong thing that ought to be done instead? I'm not seeing anyone talking about that.”

What I see people avoiding is what Tucker Carlson said quite a while ago now:

If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it’s hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don’t go to public school. You don’t take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It’s all good.

Carlson puts his finger on where the staunch political support for open borders comes from: DC swamp dwellers. I’ll add a new one relevant to the children being discussed: Support for open borders also comes from white, mostly female public school teachers who worry about their own sinecure.

I always ask Bible scoffers , where is your 8 1/2" by 11" crib sheet. Are your moral rules written somewhere so you can refer to them?. Always never take Bible versus out of context if you seriously want to understand their meaning.

Theology scholar Mike Frost wrote in 2016 that Romans 13 should not be used to quell dissent because it comes from a period when Christians faced persecution from the Roman Emperor Nero

This Frost guy is a poor theologian -- and poor historian -- then if he wrote that.

Paul's letter to the Christian community in Rome was written before Nero became emperor and was written as an introduction before Paul's planned journey to Rome. When the Nero persecution did later begin, Paul was in Rome. And he was a victim of that persecution as well, being executed by beheading (the method for one having Roman citizenship), while Peter across town and across the river was crucified up on the Vatican hill.

Moral hazard? Abusing the asylum laws, meant to protect those facing true persecution, could end them altogether. Also, immigration fueled by a desire to move to the richest country in history retards the development of the poor countries from which most immigrants come. A photograph at the border stops us from thinking about these unseen consequences, which nobody wants.

Hey! Be Fair! there were serious accusations that there might have been indications that child abuse could have possibly been something that those Texans might have been thinking about considering to maybe do at some time.

What Alternative to incinerating those children was available to Janet? I mean; Really? What else could she have done?

Hey, Fernandistein! Next time you try to tell me Sessions was addressing a group of law enforcement officers and not Catholic clergy, maybe don't include a link to a video in which he specifically addresses his audience as "church friends," mmmkay?

The press and their lower level Twitter twits have been pushing the “this isn’t a Christian thing to do” meme for the last couple weeks. THAT is why Sessions spoke on this issue. It’s disingenuous of you to pretend he just brought Christianity up out of nowhere. Personally I think if he was going to speak to the Christian morality of it he should have quoted the many Judeo Christian teachings about property rights, and especially land ownership and national sovereignty. The Old Testament and the Talmud have a lot to say about those issues and none of them support the wholesale invasion of sovereign nations. Then there’s that whole THOU SHALL NOT COVET thing. Everyone seems to forget it wasn’t just about your neighbors wife.

FWIW, https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/illegal-immigration-enforcement-separating-kids-at-border/Here's a few paragraphs, but read the whole thing:

"When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.

The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.

If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation.

Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.

That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.

The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the adjudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here)."

In April, the New York Times reported:

"Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.

Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing."

I strongly suspect that Jeff Sessions is the insurance policy that Strzok and page were talking about. A brilliant move to neuter Trump just in case he won. Out of the blue Sessions cuddles up with Trump and bang — perennial Investigation, perennial blocking and goofy recitations, make Trumps tweets look less unhinged

Jason said...Hey, Fernandistein! Next time you try to tell me Sessions was addressing a group of law enforcement officers and not Catholic clergy, maybe don't include a link to a video in which he specifically addresses his audience as "church friends," mmmkay?

OK!

Now you can apologize for wasting people's time because of your poor reading comprehension and, even far more worser, doubting my veracity.

You know, before using the Washington Post as the starting point of discussion, much less citing the MSM or especially the Washington Post -- the actual fucking Washington Post -- to justify anything, people might try going to the original source.

Thank you, Tom for that kind introduction; thank you for your eight years of service to the Department of Justice, and congratulations on your appointment as United States Attorney.

Thank you to the Fort Wayne Rotary Club, the Fort Wayne Business Forum, the Allan County Bar Association—and most of all thank you to law enforcement officers from the federal, state, and local levels.

Thank you all for being here. . . . This is an exciting and important time. We have an historic opportunity to—finally—fix an immigration system that has been broken for decades.

The American people have been begging and pleading with our elected officials for an immigration system that is lawful and that serves our national interest—one that we can be proud of. There is nothing mean-spirited about that. They are right, decent and just to ask for this. . . .

Unfortunately there has been a lot of misinformation out there on what we at the Department of Justice are doing. The reports have been so wrong that some people might even call it “fake news.”

So let me clear a few things up. . . .

However, we are not sending children to jail with their parents. The law requires that children who cannot be with their parents be placed in custody of the Department of Health and Human Services within 72 hours. . . .

Let me take an aside to discuss concerns raised by our church friends about separating families. Many of the criticisms raised in recent days are not fair or logical and some are contrary to law.

First- illegal entry into the United States is a crime—as it should be. Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution. I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order.

Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.

Our policies that can result in short term separation of families is not unusual or unjustified. American citizens that are jailed do not take their children to jail with them. And non-citizens who cross our borders unlawfully —between our ports of entry—with children are not an exception.

They are the ones who broke the law, they are the ones who endangered their own children on their trek. The United States on the other hand, goes to extraordinary lengths to protect them while the parents go through a short detention period.

Please note, Church friends, that if the adults go to one of our many ports of entry to claim asylum, they are not prosecuted and the family stays intact pending the legal process. . . .

I have given the idea of immigration much thought and have considered the arguments of our Church leaders. I do not believe scripture or church history or reason condemns a secular nation state for having reasonable immigration laws. If we have them, then they should be enforced. A mere desire to benefit from entry to the nation does not justify illegal entry. And, there are of course adverse consequences to illegal actions.

Once again, let me state that this nation has perhaps the most generous laws in the world.

My request to these religious leaders who have criticized the carrying out of our laws to also speak up strongly to urge anyone who would come here to apply lawfully, to wait their turn, and not violate the law.

Trump and Sessions are using children in the immigration battle to keep the cucks happy because the wall isn't going to be built and Mexico won't pay for it. It's also a barometer to measure the degree to which cucks will enthusiastically support inhumane cruelty of brown skinned people.

I’m glad Colbert cares. What he can do is “adopt” a family, go thru the proper legal process with DCFS, leave 3 years of tax returns with the proper agency and sign the paper that sez he will be totally responsible for them for 5 years. Or he can support them in Mexico “shepherd” them thru our legal process then be responsible for them for 5 years.

Those were the rules for me. He’s not special, he can follow them too.

Ferd: I am satisfied that while Sessions was specifically addressing a scriptural criticism of the policy, he was in fact directing his comments to the Catholic Bishops while in front of an audience of law enforcement in Indiana.

My reading comprehension was fine: My mistake was believing a single word written by that idiot Jennifer Rubin.

Not all Americans follow the admonitions in the New Testament. All Americans, however, are required to follow the law as decreed in the United States Code.

Sessions was foolish to make himself and our faith a target by citing Romans. He provides ignoramuses like Swenson and Colbert with opportunities to distort Christianity and ignore history (Wilberforce and other Christian abolitionists, lack of evidence of collusion between Trump and Putin) to score political points.

To be a libtard means to think that biblical arguments can only be made one way. Liberals can make all the biblical references they like (now do marriage and abortion, shitheads) and somehow the very conservatives being criticized on Biblical grounds are obligated not to respond, or even to say "you have it wrong, and this is why."

rcocean: The Catholic Church and the Protestants get tens of [$billions] to aid refugees and immigrants. They make $$$ off immigration. Not to mention that immigration helps fill the pews.

And then dump them on the over-burdened welfare systems of communities, whose members they proceed to harangue for being unChristian bigots and xenophobes if they presume to notice any little problems arising from the virtuecrats vast generosity with other people's money and communities.

Prediction: This issue will vanish from the public eye completely next time a Democrat is elected President, along with the national epidemic of homelessness. However, as soon as a Republican enters the White House again, the very same issue will return to the major news networks with a vengeance, like a comet returning on its elliptical orbit, causing mass panic among the superstitious.

The "children" issue is the current propaganda line.On TV news and Facebook. Part of the perpetual ongoing propaganda campaign.All part of the old ploy of "pay attention to this, not that". The system is completely transparent once you have it figured out.

The Christian promise is to use hardships as the vessel for the spirit of god. Paul thought marriage was an obstacle to being fulfilled by the spirit. The mechanism is to have a faith that loves constantly and to endure the life on earth. The effect is to set up a society where the good news can travel widely and freely. Should there be boundaries to that? Are the boundaries what informs good news?

“ The Catholic Church and the Protestants get tens of [$billions] to aid refugees and immigrants. They make $$$ off immigration. Not to mention that immigration helps fill the pews.”——————-“And then dump them on the over-burdened welfare systems of communities, whose members they proceed to harangue for being unChristian bigots and xenophobes if they presume to notice any little problems arising from the virtuecrats vast generosity with other people's money and communities.”——————————-Jordan Peterson got into some hot water with his followers a few days ago when he posted a chart on Twitter showing that immigrants use less welfare and entitlement benefits than people born here in the third or higher generations.

Paul was 100% for spreading the Gospel across the Empire. For that, he needed a Pax Romana social order without bandits or tribal wars. So Paul told the new Christians to pray for those in authority, to submit to authority, and to pay taxes, and finally to honor all men. He said their war was a spiritual war going on in the Heavens and not against the flesh and blood of the Romans.

Jordan Peterson is focusing on the US? Considering he’s Canadian? I guess he should talk to Trudeau. I’m also sure the US would be delighted to provide safe passage to Canada. Trudeau should also recall his reps in Florida and the other states who are there to discourage immigration to Canada.

Rob states...."...And why, pray tell, aren't these asylum seekers making lives for themselves in Mexico, which has a decent economy, speaks the language they do and in which their tuchuses are already located?...." 6/16/18, 7:59 AM

Well Rob, because Mexico and other countries in Central America are "sh*tholes", just like President Trump describes them. Why do you think people want to come to America, because those countries economies are better than the USA. Having lived in several of these countries their economies have not changed that much and corruption in Mexico, et.al., is one of the principal drivers of "Illegal Immigration".

ALL morality is based or borne out of religious traditions (not just Christianity) over thousands of years, whether you believe in a God or not. Your morals did not just appear out of thin air, even if you in particular never got a minute of organized religion. When my atheist friends criticize my behavior and claim me hypocritical of believing in the "lessons" of the New Testament, I respond that I often fall short of the standards set by Christ -- but at least I HAVE standards. What are yours, I ask.

Inga (11:03): “Jordan Peterson got into some hot water with his followers a few days ago when he posted a chart on Twitter showing that immigrants use less welfare and entitlement benefits than people born here in the third or higher generations.”

Wow! A double whammy from Inga. Jordan Peterson and immigration.

Never mind that it does nothing to refute the assertion that illegal immigrants and refugees stimulate funding for churches and add to the burdens on our welfare system.

Inga said....Jordan Peterson got into some hot water ...... when he posted a chart .....showing that immigrants use less welfare and entitlement benefits than people born here in the third or higher generations.6/16/18, 11:03 AM

And your point is what Inga? Because the majority now on these programs are people born here it is OK for immigrants to come to the USA and get on "Welfare and Entitlements"? My friend, logic is not your forte, you lost everyone with such B.S.

If we are really worried about the "children" then removing from their parents is not only the correct policy but what is best for the kids. Parents who bring their kids on this sort of journey, gambling that if and when they get to the US things will be better are "unfit" parents. It is one thing to gamble with your life attempting to reach the US but gambling with your kids' lives is another thing altogether. The threat of danger or poverty should never be a legitimate excuse for willingly putting children in danger.

99% of the children that the government take away from their parents are not refugees, they are just caught up in the foster care system. Either their parents are deemed unfit or they are incarcerated. If you care about these children, please consider becoming a foster parent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vexKWF7HxUA

Inga said...Jordan Peterson has a huge following here in the US. He often speaks and focuses on problems unique to the US and Canada.

I think you are failing to appreciate the very recent change in attitudes on the fucking Canadians.

"Republican voters have decided that they will follow their leader no matter what he says, and if that means changing their minds on a dime, so be it. Take Canada. Not so long ago, it was funny to attack our benevolent neighbor to the north. Countless episodes of South Park wouldn’t have worked without the baseline of reality that Canada is about as good and boring a neighbor as you can possibly imagine. But Trump has the power to change minds instantly. So in February this year, 94 percent had a favorable view of Canada. Now, only 66 percent have a favorable view, with 13 in opposition and 22 percent suddenly unsure."

I really do need to read Jordan Peterson’s book, but answer me this, Inga. How much of a cut should nurses take in their take home pay so that we can afford to look after the children of lawbreakers? How much money should we take away from your grandchildren so we can take care of the children of illegal immigrants. If illegal immigrants took jobs away from nurses, would you be okay with that? Or are they only good as long as they clean your house and do lawn care and gardening for a pittance?

In fact it is a policy goal for them to destroy as many families as possible.

They don’t give two shits about these kids. They were doing the same thing during the obama administration. They didn’t care about these kids because they couldn’t be used as pawns to gain more power over other people.

Inga: Jordan Peterson got into some hot water with his followers a few days ago when he posted a chart on Twitter showing that immigrants use less welfare and entitlement benefits than people born here in the third or higher generations.

Probably because he was using stats that didn't differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants, among other commonly seen sleights-of-hand used to "prove" the case for open-borders nutjobbery.

“The Catholic Church and the Protestants get tens of [$billions] to aid refugees and immigrants. They make $$$ off immigration. Not to mention that immigration helps fill the pews.”——————-When people start accusing the Catholic Church, Protestant organizations and now more than 25 Jewish organizations as having ulterior motives in helping migrants, it’s a new low, even for you folks.

There is no such thing as a "solid moral core". The Catholic position is that we are all sinners, in a perpetual struggle not merely to figure out what is right or wrong in an ambiguous world, but to overcome our own inherent defects. Assuming that your own opinions, or feelings, come out of a "solid moral core", is the sin of pride.

Make a case, with logic and facts and established doctrine where available, and leave the "solid moral core" in that bin of dubious rationalizations.

We can accept that we’re all sinners and still have a solid moral core. Sins and other moral failings may chip away at that core, but if it’s solid ( strong) enough it won’t crumble. Even unbelievers can have a solid moral core.

There is a clear anti-native sentiment with social justice adventures, refugee crises, and immigration reform, that forces or ignores trails of tears and emigrations reform, respectively. The motives are to disenfranchise native people (e.g. gerrymander the vote), cover-up of the collateral damage from elective wars and abortion fields, profit from redistributive change, collusion with foreign special interests, and exploit labor arbitrage. It is also to compensate for the consequences of female chauvinism, Pro-Choice, and the wicked or final solution. There needs to be emigration reform to check the excesses of foreign and domestic special and peculiar interests. The secular "religious" organizations need to stop participating in the cover-up and spreading blood libels about their neighbors.

Why not help them in their own countries and fix the shitholes they live in so they don't want to come here anymore?

So that they don't feel compelled to emigrate, or at least that they have an honest choice (no relation to Choice). Also, so that avoidance of emigration reform and its causes does not serve to obfuscate the wholly innocent victims and dysfunction of the wicked solution, the final solution, Pro-Choice and Planned Parenthood et al.

The Catholic Church is itself prone to ulterior motives. There is a great tradition, and indeed established processes, to question and purge segments of the Church that go astray for whatever reason. The Church has often had segments that devolve into corruption, for reasons that may be plausible, or rationalizable, but are often entirely irrational. Entire institutions can suffer complete demoralization.I can point to various religious orders that have been in that boat. Indeed, little known is the fact that numerous orders have been suppressed for various offenses, including financial corruption, heresy, sexual corruption, and personality cults. This was a constant in the near-2000 years of its history.Financial corruption, or its better-face-on-it cousin of privileging the interests of donors, is extremely common.

A great number of orders today are well past due for such treatment.

And the Catholics are by no means unique. There is the absurd example of the Episcopal Church in the 1970s-80s that was actively assisting murderous Puerto Rican terrorist groups, operating safe houses and financing them and shielding them from law enforcement.

The Catholic position is that we are all sinners, in a perpetual struggle not merely to figure out what is right or wrong in an ambiguous world, but to overcome our own inherent defects.

The Catholic position is that at our core, we are all good -- "very good" in fact. Humans are at the core "very good" because that core was made by God, who is all good and Himself said that the humanity He had created is "very good."

The problem is that layered on to that good core is the reality of sin -- of our free choice of the will to think and act in a way contrary to the truth of what God made us to be and intends for us to be. We do not have inherent defects. We have added-on defects, which have impaired our knowledge and judgment and will.

It is in this sense that we are all "sinners." We are all to some degree separated from the full communion with God and His Love and His Truth, which He seeks for all of His created humanity, which He created as "very good."

"Sin" does not mean "breaking the rules," with God then punishing us for having the audacity to against Him, as if He were some petulant dictator.

The concept of and word "sin," is from the German sunde, which can also be re-translated as "sunder." To "sin," thus means putting ourselves "asunder." It is any act or thought, or omission of same, which by its nature necessarily separates us from God. It is an act, etc. against reason, truth, love -- an act, etc. against the truth of our intended nature -- and thus inconsistent and in conflict with God who is Truth, God who is Love.

And by our own free choice of the will to go against truth and love, we punish ourselves. No need for God to do it. By separating ourselves from Him, who is Life itself, we necessarily separate ourselves from life, the state we call "hell." Again, it is not God who sends us to hell -- we send ourselves there.

Why not help them in their own countries and fix the shitholes they live in so they don't want to come here anymore?

If you look at Catholic teaching and the statements of the various popes, including Francis, underneath all of the other rhetoric that the media focuses on, this too is what they say. The full Catholic position calls for drastic change and improvement in the home countries so that people do not feel the need to migrate.

Inga: Hombre, because you are missing my point, I’ll make it clear for you. Even your own deep thinkers and speakers are disagreeing with the Trump Administration policies regarding migrants.

So? And? Do you think that there is a necessary logical connection between some "deep thinker's" opinion on a subject (even within his own field of expertise,let alone outside of it), and the rightness or wrongness of any particular policy?

Here, let me help you out with the answer to that question so you don't cudgel your brain too hard about it: there isn't.

(And whether he has a large following, and who those followers are, is also entirely irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of a policy.)

People with a solid moral core are in increasing numbers seeing it as indefensible.

I have no idea what all the people "with a solid moral core" are thinking on this issue, and neither do you.

And only when enough people publicly denounce it, will the Trump Administration change it.

Now that statement edges a little closer to possibly being true. If you get enough people to publicly denounce something, it might possibly result in policy change. However, this tells you nothing about whether these people know what they're talking about, or a just a bunch of dumb sheep who are easily manipulated via their emotions and moral vanity.

I don't want any magnificent, one-with-the-earth, perfect human beings from much better places than horrific deplorable-filled Americkkkkka to have to come here and suffer under the nazi leader Trump.

I recommend we build a wall and immediately cease all immigration in order to ensure no other fantastic human beings (much better human beings than republicans and conservatives) will ever be subjected to such a horrible, horrible predicament than to be in the US.

Why not help them in their own countries and fix the shitholes they live in so they don't want to come here anymore?

Pope Francis --"It is absolutely necessary, therefore, to deal with the causes which trigger migrations in the countries of origin. This requires, as a first step, the commitment of the whole international community to eliminate the conflicts and violence that force people to flee. Furthermore, far-sighted perspectives are called for, capable of offering adequate programmes for areas struck by the worst injustice and instability, in order that access to authentic development can be guaranteed for all." (just one example)

We can agree that people are imperfect and that the best strive to overcome their deficiencies. Can a philosophy be perfect? It is necessary for the principles to be internally, externally, and mutually consistent, but is that criterion sufficient?

Inga: When people start accusing the Catholic Church, Protestant organizations and now more than 25 Jewish organizations as having ulterior motives in helping migrants, it’s a new low, even for you folks.

It's true or it's not true.

The Catholic Church, Protestant organizations, and Jewish organizations are made up of fallible human beings, and therefore as subject to error and foolishness, and, yes, self-delusion about their motivations, as any other group of people, whatever good intentions most of the individuals staffing them may have started with.

It's child endangerment, neglect, and abuse to drag your children to the border knowing you will likely be arrested and separated from them, not to mention the dangers of the travel. Parents who endanger their children like that should and would always be separated for their safety.

Under Obama, we had immigration reform, including: mass exodus, refugee crises, and trail of tears. As well as people left behind. Perhaps acceptable collateral damage of social justice adventures, redistributive change, and democratic gerrymandering. We also had labor arbitrage, population replacement, and Planned Parenthood/selective-child compensation. There have been some positive changes; but, unfortunately, mostly status quo and some progress.

Inga: “Hombre, because you are missing my point, I’ll make it clear for you. Even your own deep thinkers and speakers are disagreeing with the Trump Administration policies regarding migrants.”

I’m not missing your point. You are missing your point. I’ve never read Peterson, but I doubt he thought he was disagreeing with Trump policy. Regardless, his tweet does not, could not, disprove the contention that illegals “add to the burdens on the welfare system.” They do!

As for “people with a “solid moral core,” get serious please. You and your ilk are moral relativists. Your moral core is solid like vapor. Anything morally tangible emanating from your “core” is borrowed from religion and is fleeting as the wind.

Your stand on immigration is emotional and political. It is absurd to suggest that it is based on reason or morality.

Michael: I wonder who unites the one arm behind your back after each satisfying devastation of Inga's typing?

You flatter me, but "satisfying", "devastating"? My dear, no such thing. She is gloriously impervious. Claiming victory in a round with Our Ing would be like claiming to have gotten the better of a chimpanzee in a debate.

I just throw my hand in now and again responding to her, just to enjoy the hooting and chest-thumping and general happy air of self-satisfaction she displays in response to any challenges.

I wish Sarah Sanders had given that caterwauling communist a simple explanation as to why the baby beaners have to be separated from their wetback parents.

Social services always takes children out of the home of criminals until it is determined that they are not at risk.

All illegal aliens are criminals by virtue of the fact that they are breaking our immigration laws by the mere fact that they sneaked into our country illegally. Ipso factco bitches you are criminals. So their children must be taken and held in safety until we determine that the parents are not putting them in danger. Now risking their life by using human traffickers and coyotes who would exploit them sexually and every other which way is putting the children at risk. If every other Jamal or Velveeta loses their kids for shoplifting Ring Dings when the EBT card is out of cash than Jose and Maria don't get no special treatment.

It is perfectly illustrated by the big shit storm in New York. An illegal immigrant delivery guy was bringing a pizza to an Army base. He didn't have id. No drivers license. So they reported him to ICE and he is in custody. Now think about that. This taco bender does not have a valid drivers license but his job is driving a car and delivering pizzas. Now is this a job that an American would not take? If his name was Malik or Bob or Sean and he was driving without a license he would be arrested at the very least. But the progressive want to give illegals more rights than American citizens.

That is why they think it is horrendous when their kids are taken away when they break the law and put them in danger.

These children need to be given back to their parents. I agree. Pack them all up and send them back to their shit hole countries. We have had enough. We are full up. No more. Go home Pedro. You too Mohamed.

That photo of the armed storm-trooper "throwing down" on the kid in the closet was a vivid pictorial summary of the power of the State. For this reason, "liberal" statists rejoiced in it. One who was particularly open about shouting "Callooh! Callay!" was chronic State-shtupper Garry Wills, who said something very much like what Stewie Griffin said when he was beating up Brian the Dog on FAMILY GUY: "You like this? You like this? This is what happens, man! This is what happens!"

Inga: When people start accusing the Catholic Church, Protestant organizations and now more than 25 Jewish organizations as having ulterior motives in helping migrants, it’s a new low, even for you folks.

Nothing has ever prevented those organizations from sending more money and missionaries to those countries to help ever. They chose to spend more money here instead of there. OTOH Inga, who’s filling the pews here?